State of Iowa v. Sean David Gordon, 921 N.W.2d 19

Sean Gordon (24) pled guilty to third-degree sexual abuse for sexual activity with a 14‑year‑old; sentencing set after PSI ordered.
While awaiting sentencing, Gordon was arrested on January 22 for methamphetamine possession while in a car with a juvenile who had been reported missing.
A psychosexual assessment (PAR) attached to the PSI included scores from STATIC-99R and SOTIPS placing Gordon at average-to-high risk for sexual recidivism.
At sentencing Gordon and counsel had the PSI and PAR before the court; counsel stated no general objection to their use at sentencing (only objecting to DOC’s request to hold defendant pending placement).
The district court referenced and relied on the PSI/PAR risk assessments and the January 22 arrest and sentenced Gordon to up to ten years’ imprisonment; Gordon appealed.
The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed, holding no statutory authority for using sex‑offender risk assessment tools in sentencing; the Iowa Supreme Court granted further review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court’s use of sex‑offender risk assessment tools violated due process	State: tools may be considered as part of PSI and sentencing information	Gordon: use of STATIC‑99R and SOTIPS without ability to challenge their scientific validity violates due process	Not reached on the merits — claim not preserved; record insufficient for direct review
Whether failure to object at sentencing constituted ineffective assistance of counsel	State: no reversible error without preserved record; ineffective‑assistance claim needs developed record	Gordon: counsel was ineffective for not objecting to court’s consideration of risk tools	Court did not resolve on direct appeal; allowed as PCR claim because record is insufficient for direct review
Whether court relied on an unproven or unprosecuted offense (Jan. 22 arrest)	State: PSI contained admissions and unchallenged facts supporting consideration	Gordon: court improperly relied on non‑conviction/uncharged conduct	Held no abuse of discretion — defendant admitted PSI facts (meth use and presence with juvenile) and did not challenge PSI information

State v. Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009) (distinguishes intrinsically unconstitutional sentences from procedurally preserved sentencing errors)
State v. Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d 399 (Iowa 2000) (court may rely on unchallenged PSI content)
State v. Witham, 583 N.W.2d 677 (Iowa 1998) (court may not consider unproven offense at sentencing unless facts show commission or defendant admits)
State v. Gonzalez, 582 N.W.2d 515 (Iowa 1998) (statements to PSI investigator can constitute admissions allowing consideration of unproven conduct)
State v. Brubaker, 805 N.W.2d 164 (Iowa 2011) (ineffective‑assistance claims may be reached on direct appeal only if record is sufficient)
State v. Lathrop, 781 N.W.2d 288 (Iowa 2010) (claims of illegal sentence can be raised at any time)
State v. Ayers, 590 N.W.2d 25 (Iowa 1999) (defendant need not always object at sentencing to preserve appellate review of discretionary errors)
Drake v. State, 259 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 1977) (due process requires sentencing on accurate information)
Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736 (U.S. 1948) (defendant has due process right to fair sentencing based on accurate information)
Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (U.S. 2017) (courts must avoid punishing based on who a person is rather than what they did; expert evidence can raise due process concerns)